State of Tennessee v. Edwin Gomez and Jonathan S. Londono

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that detectives' testimony summarizing co-defendant Guartos' oral statement violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington because the statement was testimonial and the defendants had no prior opportunity to cross-examine him, but it denied relief: Gomez withdrew his objection for tactical reasons and failed plain error review, and Londono's preserved claim failed because a Crawford error is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that Blakely did not announce a new rule, that the defendants' unpreserved Sixth Amendment sentencing challenge was limited to plain error review, and that Tennessee's Criminal Sentencing Reform Act is a nonmandatory, advisory scheme that does not violate the Sixth Amendment because a judicially found enhancement factor does not mandate an increased sentence. The convictions and maximum consecutive forty-nine-year sentences were affirmed. Justice Anderson, joined by Justice Birch, concurred in the Crawford resolution but dissented from the sentencing holding, would have held Blakely invalidated the sentences and would have remanded for resentencing.